Kerala High Court
Abid C A vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 8813 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:68900
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 25TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 8813 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 ABID C A,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, CHEERANKUNDIL HOUSE,
KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD, PIN - 673122
2 MUHAMMED P V,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. MAMMAD, PUTHUVANATHIL HOUSE, KANIYAMBETTA P.O.,
WAYANAD, PIN - 670645
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, NORTH KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD,
PIN - 673122
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MANANTHAVADY, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MALAYORA
HIGHWAY, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANNAD, PIN - 670645
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
COLLECTORATE, NORTH KALPETTA P.O.,WAYANAD,
PIN - 673122
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
VYTHIRI TALUK OFFICE, VYTHIRI, UNNATHIDAVAKA,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
WP(C) NO. 8813 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:68900
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KALPETTA VILLAGE OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673122
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KALPETTA KRISHI BHAVAN, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN -
673121
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP
SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
16.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 8813 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:68900
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession of
2.82 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.106/39 in
Kalppatta Village, Vythiri Taluk, covered under Ext.P1
land tax receipt. The property is a converted land and is
unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the
respondents have erroneously classified the property as
'paddy land' and included it in the data bank maintained
under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland
Act, 2008, and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and
'Rules', for brevity). To exclude the property from the data
bank, the petitioners had submitted Ext.P2 application in
Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures
2025:KER:68900
as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore,
the order is devoid of any independent finding regarding
the nature and character of the land as it existed on
12.08.2008 -- the date the Act came into force. The
impugned order, therefore, is arbitrary and unsustainable
in law and liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' principal contention is that
the applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the
Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected the
same without proper consideration or application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of
judgments of this Court -- including the decisions in
Muraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer
[2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue
Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and
2025:KER:68900
Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub
Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the
authorised officer is obliged to assess the nature, lie and
character of the land and its suitability for paddy
cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive
criteria to determine whether the property is to be
excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P3 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory
requirements. There is no indication in the order that the
authorised officer has personally inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has
merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural Officer
without rendering any independent finding regarding the
nature and character of the land as on the relevant date.
There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the
property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy
fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the
2025:KER:68900
impugned order was passed in contravention of the
statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court.
Thus, the impugned order is vitiated due to errors of law
and non-application of mind, and is liable to be quashed.
Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to
reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure
prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 application, in accordance with
the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of
the property or calling for the satellite pictures as
provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of
the petitioners.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the
application shall be disposed of within three months
from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other
2025:KER:68900
hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the
property personally, the application shall be disposed
of within two months from the date of production of a
copy of this judgment by the petitioners.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:68900
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8813/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
02.05.2024
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
23.03.2022
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPLICATION NO.
4/2022/914524 DATED 14.05.2024 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
